Why aren't Calif. politicians afraid of us like national ones are of the NRA?

[donw]

one factor i haven't seen mentioned yet is the fear of gangs and drug related activities...

deleon and portantino are obsessed with this ... no matter the affect on ALL.

logic has no place in their system; it's that simple.

[wildhawker]

1. The republicants demanded redistricting and got it. They will likely lose seats for it.

2. Term limits means we have to "re-train" members when they term out. Member turnover is expensive.

3. Gun owners are generally disengaged and unwilling to pay for serious anything, let alone politics.

Oh, and http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/...-by-county.pdf.

-Brandon

[bwiese]

The NRA spends a huge amount here just trying to maintain the status quo. That involves not only legislation and legal but "keeping shooting alive" - training, promoting youth shooting, getting compensatory PR for wetlands issues, etc. It's all part of the game.

A lot of CGF work we're doing is to at least stay in place while other work is for advancing.

The NRA also expects a functional state rifle org to exist, and bring about local focus, local pressure and local money dumps. Given California's political context, it is also better that pressure comes from an organization that has "California" in its title and not from "The Evil NRA".

[The NRA can't be responsible for the failure of the CA Republican party to be remotely relevant and not fall at or below 1/3 in legislature. Until the CA GOP fixes itself thru certain policy changes and makes itself appealable to a wider range of voters, districts will be jerrymandered and the CA Dems will move further left. We gunnies are gonna have to think about a state with a "left Dem" and a "right Dem" party that has a few straggling irrelevant Whig-like Republicans, and work to effect change in that environment and assist/develop legislators in the mold of Rod Wright, Lou Correa, Nicole Parra, etc.]

So we also do have the CRPA with now a very good skilled lobbyist, but we need lobbyists with nukes in their holsters. Ideally this means our lobbyists are Honest Brokers that cogently explain our position, negotiate, etc. But this in turn means the state rifle org must move into more PAC-like behavior (or have an offshoot org from it) - so when a lobbyist is told "no", there's an implicit, "OK your opponent is getting cash and discounts from a gun-owner run billboard company."

That requires the state org/PAC to rejigger some funds in vs funds-out organizational financial effectiveness etc and some other rejiggering of staff vs contract work, office location, etc. to minimize overhead. It also means some discipline because not all political spending will lead to immediate results - it takes time to soak in.

When you start dropping $25K - $50K in a few races here and there, that can change the game. All of a sudden people get tamer because they don't want their opponent armed with cash, nor exert more fundraising effort to countermand their opposition. You apply the pressure at lower levels so you don't have to spend big at higher levels.

Some of the problem is also, "We have met the enemy and they is us."

We have ~500K NRA members in CA. But there are millions of CA gun owners and shooters. There are probably 1 million folks that claim NRA membership because they signed up for a 1 year and let it lapse.

We have more people go to a SCI hunter's dinner than work with their local NRA Members' Councils.

We have people all fired up if they're gonna tweak the definition of a pistol grip, but they won't populate a lead ammo F&G hearing, or a city council gunshop ordinance hearing. You have to cover the whole ground and not let up.

We have Californians that donate nicely to gun orgs - but by contrast PORAC members give somewhere around $900 a year for something as trivial as a job/benefits.

Compare that with your $25 NRA membership that covers the magazine a bit and maybe you spend $60 on a ticket to an NRA dinner.

A combination of membership numbers and money count. Everything else is bull***t.

[madcatsden]

I'd like to be involved with this type of organization but it seems like most of the conversation here is about "those **** heel liberals and democrats." I'm a ****ing democrat but I firmly believe in my right to bear arms.

Want to reach out to people in California? Start by dropping the overall message of "idiot, ignorant, mindless Democrats." Instead of insulting a potential support base, why not try and foster a friendship with those Democrats that are pro-gun and maybe you'll get those extra votes and support that this cause desperately needs.

I do realize that most of the followers of Calguns are hardcore Republicans and I'm cool with that but a little mutual respect goes a long way.

[Uxi]

I do realize that most of the followers of Calguns are hardcore Republicans and I'm cool with that but a little mutual respect goes a long way.

The general bent is far more libertarian (lower case) than Republican, especially amongst the most... prominent.

[bwiese]

To the OP...

#1 Start with reform of CRPA

- become a member and voice your opinion
- donate immediately to savecrpa's effort to hold the board and executives accountable and honest @ https://bcombs.net/ see thread http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...highlight=crpa

We must have legit strong lobbyist in Sacramento.

This in my mind is the highest priority. When CRPA is brought up to speed and kept humming we can work on bills and districts one at a time. We can also do that concurrently but much of the effort is diminished without statewide pressure and organization as you suggested.

WE ALREADY HAVE A GREAT CRPA LOBBYIST IN SACTO. His name is Tom Pederson, he's really smart and works his *** off, and he works great with the NRA lobbyist Ed Worley. I know and trust these people.

What we need for him to have is some big guns in his holsters (affiliated PAC). That way when negotiations fail, our opponents know there will be financial consequences as well as Orange Cards going out.

[madcatsden]

The general bent is far more libertarian (lower case) than Republican, especially amongst the most... prominent.

That's an interesting bit of information. I don't know many Libertarians and those that I do aren't as obviously anti-Democrat so I didn't assume that that was the case here.

Regardless of which party people are a part of it does not invalidate my point about mutual respect and the suggestion to tone down the comments about the "Dems and their liberal agenda."

I have many pro-gun Democrat friends and relatives that would NEVER join the NRA because of the overall attitude about Democrats.

[randian]

The Democrats don't even need gerrymandered districts anymore. They suckered the voters into voting for an all-party, first two past the post primary system. A Republican can't even get on the ballot unless he or she gets at least the second-most number of votes. That means that most races will now be uncontested. Then the voters compounded this error by voting to give the legislature the right to impose taxes without a 2/3 majority, completely locking the Republicans out of any meaningful legislative input.

[Uxi]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/charlie-mahtesian/2012/07/whos-to-blame-for-the-calif-gop-collapse-129801.html

[Uxi]

The Democrats don't even need gerrymandered districts anymore. They suckered the voters into voting for an all-party, first two past the post primary system. A Republican can't even get on the ballot unless he or she gets at least the second-most number of votes. That means that most races will now be uncontested. Then the voters compounded this error by voting to give the legislature the right to impose taxes without a 2/3 majority, completely locking the Republicans out of all meaningful lesiglative input.

That's not the only problem, though. That would explain single party dominance but not why there's s no competing subfactions in the Democrat Party to take the de facto place of the Republicans (or some other party). The answer, as noted, is to follow the money. This may correct itself on it's own as the Democrats coalition starts to compete against itself (saw a bit of that with the High Speed Rail thing that just passed - the money that will be cut from CSU/UC next year is almost exact to the dollar the amount of the interest for the HSR)... if the ballot initiative on taxes is rejected again (much like Gay Marriage, the increased taxation has appeared on every consecutive ballot initiative, yet continually has the same results. People are fine taxing other people but not themselves, in a big duh moment).

Unfortunately, they're likely to keep bonding and borrowing and deficit spending until they bankupt the State and the taxpayers will be left with the bag. Those that don't migrate to other States, anyways. This has been the real cause behind the cause IMO. Productive elements have been fleeing the State for a decade. The only reason the population hasn't been shrinking is influx of consuming immigrants (both legal and non).

The only silver lining to this situation is that it can't be blamed on the Republicans since they have no voice.

[njineermike]

That's not the only problem, though. That would explain single party dominance but not why there's s no competing subfactions in the Democrat Party to take the de facto place of the Republicans (or some other party). The answer, as noted, is to follow the money. This may correct itself on it's own as the Democrats coalition starts to compete against itself (saw a bit of that with the High Speed Rail thing that just passed - the money that will be cut from CSU/UC next year is almost exact to the dollar the amount of the interest for the HSR)... if the ballot initiative on taxes is rejected again (much like Gay Marriage, the increased taxation has appeared on every consecutive ballot initiative, yet continually has the same results. People are fine taxing other people but not themselves, in a big duh moment).

Unfortunately, they're likely to keep bonding and borrowing and deficit spending until they bankupt the State and the taxpayers will be left with the bag. Those that don't migrate to other States, anyways. This has been the real cause behind the cause IMO. Productive elements have been fleeing the State for a decade. The only reason the population hasn't been shrinking is influx of consuming immigrants (both legal and non).

The only silver lining to this situation is that it can't be blamed on the Republicans since they have no voice.

Unfortunately, there are STILL some who believe otherwise. They honestly believe the reason things are so bad is not due to excessive overreach bythe democrat leadership, it's due to republicans trying to slow down the speeding runaway locomotive of destruction this state's economy has become.

[wildhawker]

#1 Start with reform of CRPA

- become a member and voice your opinion
- donate immediately to savecrpa's effort to hold the board and executives accountable and honest @ https://bcombs.net/ see thread http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...highlight=crpa

I agree, we need a reformed CRPA that engages membership and offers real value, including that of projecting tangible political force.

WE ALREADY HAVE A GREAT CRPA LOBBYIST IN SACTO. His name is Tom Pederson, he's really smart and works his *** off, and he works great with the NRA lobbyist Ed Worley. I know and trust these people.

What we need for him to have is some big guns in his holsters (affiliated PAC). That way when negotiations fail, our opponents know there will be financial consequences as well as Orange Cards going out.

Tom is a good man but certainly I think he'd agree that, for example, COHA did it like experienced winning vets would by hiring real pros from the building (while CRPA's decision-making exemplifies their executives' total lack of competence).

Tom is fine because, outside of his having integrity, Ed directs his efforts and is training him up in his image, but both Tom and Ed will retire at some point. Then what? Do you really want Tony Montanarella or John Fields leading gun politics in California?

-Brandon

[IVC]

I have many pro-gun Democrat friends and relatives that would NEVER join the NRA because of the overall attitude about Democrats.

Such as supporting Harry Reid?

Pro-2A Democrats get full support from the NRA. It's a one-issue organization and the correlation to the Republicans is just that - a correlation.

[readysetgo]

WE ALREADY HAVE A GREAT CRPA LOBBYIST IN SACTO. His name is Tom Pederson, he's really smart and works his *** off, and he works great with the NRA lobbyist Ed Worley. I know and trust these people.

What we need for him to have is some big guns in his holsters (affiliated PAC). That way when negotiations fail, our opponents know there will be financial consequences as well as Orange Cards going out.

Thank you bwiese. I hear you about Tom Pederson. Are my other points invalid though?

bwiese can you clarify what you mean by "affiliated PAC" and "Orange Cards"? I'm not familiar with this.

Can somebody verify, lobbying efforts are through CRPA Foundation, correct?
Even then I don't see them (CRPA and CRPAF) as mutually exclusive, although I understand they are different entities. Don't many of the same people run both?

I still say our FREEDOM, way of life and future are tied into this issue of RKBA and protect those we must. How we do it is literally second to the conscious decision we must make and reinforce on a daily basis that "we WILL protect our freedom".

I 100% agree w/

A combination of membership numbers and money count. Everything else is bull***t.

So then... the answer to the OP is

RECRUIT and DONATE, zero bull***t!

or are we going to Debbie Downer that idea too?

[wildhawker]

Being called a Debbie Downer usually means that the audience didn't like the facts...

-Brandon